Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by OldRedCap, May 11, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
This needs to be put about a bit - sharia might not be so attractive after all!
Bit disingenuos there ORC.
The complaint is not about Sharia law but the way in which the Taleban are applying it. As the article points out Sharia law is part of normal life in Islam. What is not is how this is being interpreted and applied by the Taleban which it is claimed is not according to Sharia.
Obviously there are short memories at work here. Just a few years ago this type of law was imposed in Afghanistan by the Taleban which resulted, partly, in our currentl deployment there. As the Taleban were moved out of Afghanistan then they have moved towards an easier target in Pakistan.
From what I can gather, which is purely from media articles I am afraid, the people of this part of Pakistan were p!ssed off with the current system and asked for Sharia courts to help them in dispensing justice in their area. This was granted and the Taleban, or their supporters, have latched on to this and tried to impose the type of system that used to be life in Afghanistan.
I have to stress here that I have no legal or clerical training so may be talking out of my arrse but the people of Pakistan asked for Sharia law, not dictatorship by clerics or the Taleban.
BTW, I have never really thought about this before, but what exactly is 'The Taleban'? is it a religious sect, political group or tribe? Why are Taleban mentioned in any Islamic area where there is trouble? What is their claim and hold over the populace?
On the upside,telling your wife she is divorced,and you are instantly divorced has some merit.
It goes to prove that a system of law is only acceptable by the people if it is tempered by justice. It is also a graphic illustration that extremists (of any faith) do not represent the mainstream of that faith. The Taliban are not representative of Islam and even fellow Muslims find them excessive and unpalatable.
"Taleb" means student, Auld_Yin, and "Taleban" is the plural. Most of the Taleban were primarily Afghan refugee kids taught in the madrassas (religious schools) of the refugee camps in Pakistan during the "WATI" (War Against The Ivans) between 1979 and 1989. Unfortunately, a lot of the teachers were from Saudi Arabia and carted along their particularly toxic brand of Islam.
Hope this helps.
Auld Yin. All your points taken on board as valid and no dissent from me. What hoped I was illustrating is that sharia is variable. Those who asked for it thought they would get Sharia type A but what they got was sharia type B. Like asking for oranges and getting lemons. I do hear demands from immigrants for sharia but I've not heard them define exactly what they think this might be. Same problem for us/whoever agrees to recognise sharia as we cannot be sure what we are agreeing to. The Koran itself and the other Holy Words are subject to interpretation and argument so it is reasonable to assume that sharia is not a known quantity.
Whilst I know many Muslims who interpret the Koran as it (probably) should be interpreted, it is (just like any other religion) open to interpretation.
I visited Kabul some years ago, and spoke to a local who'd been arrested and spent two weeks being beaten and abused in prison. His crime had been to acknowledge his sister in the street.
Then again, that's the problem with basing anything other than religion on religion.
Absolutley agree; the traditional Sufi inspired Islam of these regions is utterly different from the hardline Wahabism that the Taliban are importing. The Taliban are attacking traditional ways of worship and the tradition of pluralism within Islam. I believe this can be compared to the religious upheavals that existed in Europe from the time of Martin Luther.
(Read the excellent novel "Q" by Luther Blisset, set against the background of these turbulent times, a lot better than some of the dry histories of the period.)
Bone question: Why did the media spell it Taliban for years and then change to Taleban?...
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
I believe one version is Dari and one's Pushtu, Cap'n.
Mind you, maybe they just thought it was a bit more "fashionable". Like they love to say "content" when they're actually talking about "contents".
...and here's another one Bugsy. 'Feng Shui' is apparently pronounced 'Fung Shoy' so why don't we spell it like that? After all it's pinched from a language with a completely different writing system so we can spell it how we want.
These things keep me awake at night: please help!....
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
Old Red Cap
It was the Senior Law Lord, Lord Phillips, who agreed with the sentiments of the Archbishop of Canterbury that Sharia Law could exist in UK.
This appears to be because a contract can be made subject of any law. Appealing a breach of it would have to be to English Law. But I don't think he covered that you cannot contract to deny any person their liberties, rights and customs under our Common Law.
I think later this year The Law Lords will get a separate department under the Supreme Courts Act.
I wonder what happens to the principle that the Law Lords are the Court of Last Resort and in law are the Monarch (sole fount of justice in mercy) in parliament.
What happens when they ain't in parliament ?
I wonder if Lord Phillips has been as articulate in defending our unrepealable constitution as he was in promoting Sharia concepts ?
My view is that New Labour has been one of the most dangerous governments in history for destroying the fabric of our Realm without observing the principle that any change must preserve the existing principle and improve upon it.
Separate names with a comma.